Debian Bug report logs - #686453
ITP: spl-dkms -- The Solaris Porting Layer (SPL) for the Linux kernel

version graph

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 18:45:02 UTC

Owned by: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>

Severity: wishlist

Fixed in version spl-linux/0.6.1-1

Done: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:45:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to debian-devel@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org. (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:45:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: ITP: spl-dkms -- The Solaris Porting Layer (SPL) for the Linux kernel
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:41:06 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Package: wnpp
Owner: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

* Package name    : spl-dkms
  Version         : 0.6.0
  Upstream Author : Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
* URL             : http://zfsonlinux.org/
* License         : GPL-2+
  Programming Lang: C
  Description     : The Solaris Porting Layer (SPL) for the Linux kernel.

 The Solaris Porting Layer (SPL) is a Linux kernel module which provides
 many of the Solaris kernel APIs. This shim layer makes it possible to
 run Solaris kernel code in the Linux kernel with relatively minimal
 modification.
 .
 This can be particularly useful when you want to track upstream Solaris
 development closely and don't want the overhead of maintaining a large
 patch which converts Solaris primitives to Linux primitives.
 .
 This package contains the source code for the SPL Linux kernel module,
 which can be used with DKMS, so that local kernel modules are automatically
 built and installed every time the kernel packages are upgraded.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Added indication that bug 686453 blocks 686447 Request was from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:27:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:27:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:27:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #12 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>
Cc: 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#686453: ITP: spl-dkms -- The Solaris Porting Layer (SPL) for the Linux kernel
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 01:22:20 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 01/09/12 22:56, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> replying in private
> 
> On 1 September 2012 19:41, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> wrote:
>>
>>  This can be particularly useful when you want to track upstream Solaris
>>  development closely and don't want the overhead of maintaining a large
>>  patch which converts Solaris primitives to Linux primitives.
>>  .
> 
> How does one "track upstream Solaris development"? Is it not closed
> source since Solaris 11 release? Or is this in reference to other
> solaris kernels used by open source forks after the end of the
> OpenSolaris project?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dmitrijs.
> 

You are right. I C&P the description from the source code [1].
I will rephrase the package description as:

 This can be particularly useful when you want to track upstream Illumos
 (or any other OpenSolaris fork) development closely and don't want the
 overhead of maintaining a large patch which converts Solaris primitives
 to Linux primitives.


Regards!
--------

[1]
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/spl

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:36:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:36:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: zfsonlinux packaging
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:31:34 +0800
Hi,

It has been one and a half months after these two ITPs get filed, I'm
curious about if there are any progress for us to look into, e.g. a
git repository.

I'm a DD and I'm willing to review them if you'd like me to, even if
zfs's future isn't clear to everyone it's still means a lot for some
users.


--
Regards,
Aron Xu



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:27:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:27:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
Cc: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: zfsonlinux packaging
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:23:40 +0800
I've done a quick review of spl-linux package in PPA, and overall the
package is in acceptable state on technical side, and here are my
comments:

1. Version number of upstream release needs to be mangled to something
like 0.6.0~rc12, because 0.6.0-rc12 is larger than 0.6.0, and 0.6.0.xx
isn't that easy to identify for users.

2. Recommend to clear d/changelog for uploading to Debian, it's a new start, :-)

3. Use compat 9 and Build-Depends on debhelper >= 9, this makes your
binaries in usr/sbin being hardened at build-time.

4. Architecture should be linux-any, as they are only intended for Linux.

5. Revise descriptions in d/control based on Carlos's current draft in ITP.

6. Update Standards-Version to 3.9.4

7. spl-dkms.postinst spl-dkms.prerm should be removed because they are
not actually used.

8. Add a dedicate paragraph in d/copyright for GPL-2+.


--
Regards,
Aron Xu



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #27 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
To: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
Cc: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: zfsonlinux packaging
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:42:15 -0600
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> wrote:
> I've done a quick review of spl-linux package in PPA, and overall the
> package is in acceptable state on technical side, and here are my
> comments:

(Thanks.)


> 1. Version number of upstream release needs to be mangled to something
> like 0.6.0~rc12, because 0.6.0-rc12 is larger than 0.6.0, and 0.6.0.xx
> isn't that easy to identify for users.
>
> 2. Recommend to clear d/changelog for uploading to Debian, it's a new start, :-)

I asked upstream about this concern earlier. The current plan is to
release the first non-RC as version 0.6.1 and use git-buildpackage
versioning afterwards.  (ie: There will be no official 0.6.0 release,
only release candidates.)

I intend to clear the changelog when I branch for wheezy and raring,
and then use separate branches thereafter.


> 3. Use compat 9 and Build-Depends on debhelper >= 9, this makes your
> binaries in usr/sbin being hardened at build-time.
>
> 4. Architecture should be linux-any, as they are only intended for Linux.
>
> 5. Revise descriptions in d/control based on Carlos's current draft in ITP.
>
> 6. Update Standards-Version to 3.9.4
>
> 7. spl-dkms.postinst spl-dkms.prerm should be removed because they are
> not actually used.
>
> 8. Add a dedicate paragraph in d/copyright for GPL-2+.

Okay, done.  See:
https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl/commit/e07989f936096ef82b7807f904caed26c02a864a

-- 
Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sat, 08 Dec 2012 04:51:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Sat, 08 Dec 2012 04:51:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
To: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
Cc: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: zfsonlinux packaging
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 12:46:38 +0800
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> wrote:
>> 1. Version number of upstream release needs to be mangled to something
>> like 0.6.0~rc12, because 0.6.0-rc12 is larger than 0.6.0, and 0.6.0.xx
>> isn't that easy to identify for users.
>>
>> 2. Recommend to clear d/changelog for uploading to Debian, it's a new start, :-)
>
> I asked upstream about this concern earlier. The current plan is to
> release the first non-RC as version 0.6.1 and use git-buildpackage
> versioning afterwards.  (ie: There will be no official 0.6.0 release,
> only release candidates.)
>
> I intend to clear the changelog when I branch for wheezy and raring,
> and then use separate branches thereafter.
>

Good to know!

>
>> 3. Use compat 9 and Build-Depends on debhelper >= 9, this makes your
>> binaries in usr/sbin being hardened at build-time.
>>
>> 4. Architecture should be linux-any, as they are only intended for Linux.
>>
>> 5. Revise descriptions in d/control based on Carlos's current draft in ITP.
>>
>> 6. Update Standards-Version to 3.9.4
>>
>> 7. spl-dkms.postinst spl-dkms.prerm should be removed because they are
>> not actually used.
>>
>> 8. Add a dedicate paragraph in d/copyright for GPL-2+.
>
> Okay, done.  See:
> https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl/commit/e07989f936096ef82b7807f904caed26c02a864a
>

Thanks, and I see there is a .pc directory in your git repository,
which is not necessary, quilt/dpkg-source will re-create it whenever
they process the patches.

--
Regards,
Aron Xu



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:51:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:51:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #37 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
To: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
Cc: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: zfsonlinux packaging
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 05:46:02 -0600
> Thanks, and I see there is a .pc directory in your git repository,
> which is not necessary, quilt/dpkg-source will re-create it whenever
> they process the patches.

Okay, amended as:
https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl/commit/ce1eba9e029d64cacec1ae4f0f78a892a2cf60e5

-- 
Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:30:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:30:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #42 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
To: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:26:33 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi!

Finally found some time to work on the spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages.

I started with debian helpers from Darik Horn and I ended rewriting many
things. Hope all looks ok O:-) You have a summary of the most relevant
changes on the commit message [1]

Keep in mind that the packages are still in beta status. There are things
to fix like all the pending lintian warnings, perhaps rewriting
debian/copyright (copyright notices can be added together when they share
one or more authors, there is not need for an entry for each one)

Also I will wait until upstream releases 0.6.0. I don't want to release
a -rc version. Also 0.6.0 would be the version where the ZPL layer will
be considered stabilized.

I founded that there is not possible to add two people as maintainers.
debuild will complain about malformed maintainer address.

So I guess we need to set-up a project on Alioth to handle the team
maintenance. I'm not a DD, so I would be very grateful if some of you
that are DDs (Aron?) could set-up the Alioth project to collaborative
maintain this package and add us to it (my login-name on Alioth is
clopez-guest).

I removed from the control files lot of replaces/conflicts that didn't
make sense to me. Perhaps for Ubuntu make sense (don't know). I guess
Darik can review it and fix when needed so Ubuntu users can have a painless
upgrade from the Darik's PPA packages to this ones. As you probably know
Ubuntu "steals" the packages from Debian/sid for normal versions and from
Debian/testing for LTS versions. So I guess this packages would end on
Ubuntu's official repositories in a year or so.


One question that floats over my mind is related to the name of the packages
libzfs-dev libzfs1 and zfsutils. On Debian/kFreeBSD there are packages with
the same name. Is allowed to have different source packages building binary
packages with the same name when they are different architectures? If is not
allowed then I guess we will have to rename the packages.


The repositories with the packages are here:

https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux
https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms


Just in case someone want to test it, I have uploaded all packages built
for AMD64 as also the source packages to here:


http://ftp.neutrino.es/zfs-linux/


To test it, at least the packages zfs-dkms and zfsutils should be
installed (with all the required dependencies).

I will be on holidays next week. So looking forward to see your replies 
when I come back.


Keep in mind that the packages are still a work-in-progress.

Patches/pull-requests/suggestions are welcome :)



Best regards!
-------------


[1]
https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms/commit/a88b5bf72fe8f11f7dbd0ebe17ba7b46e00a4e6f
https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux/commit/8f3e1ef9a2dfbff9594e5d823e0d18121efba688

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:21:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:21:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #47 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
Cc: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:19:35 -0600
> I removed from the control files lot of replaces/conflicts that didn't make sense to me.

These dependency changes break upgrades from version 0.5, which is
technically the current stable release.  Upgrades across ABI revisions
in the 0.6 series are also broken.

Additionally, the libavl conflict still matters.  Not understanding
something is not a reason to delete it.


> Perhaps for Ubuntu make sense (don't know).

No, it applies to all distributions in the Debian family.


> One question that floats over my mind is related to the name of the packages
> libzfs-dev libzfs1 and zfsutils. On Debian/kFreeBSD there are packages with
> the same name.

The pkg-zfs packages are named like kFreeBSD, Illumos, and Solaris so
that third party software has basic control compatibility and can be
more easily shared between platforms.

(Further inline quotes are from the two commit messages.)


> Strip from spl-dkms all files not related to kernel modules.

Why are you removing copyright attributions like the AUTHORS file?
This could upset ZoL contributors and cause legal exposure.


> Rewrite postinst helper that ensures that /etc/hostid is valid and will remain constant across reboots.

The __BYTE_ORDER__ test is interesting.  I will likely add it to pkg-spl.

However, randomizing the hostid violates the principle of least
astonishment because it causes a zpool.cache mismatch that breaks
subsequent imports, and it can break license management for non-Debian
software.

Stabilizing the hostid is safe, but changing the hostid is unsafe for
the same reason that randomizing a missing hostname is wrong.


> Use pristine-tar and create the package from tarballs released from upstream.

The pristine-tar branch already exists in pkg-spl and pkg-zfs.  Using
the pristine-tar facility is certainly correct, but not currently
practical for doing the frequent releases that ZoL users expect.


> Don't ignore all files (--extend-diff-ignore='.*').

This is a convenience for me.  It makes continuous integration easier.


> Fix clean target and use dh_autoreconf

This breaks backports for Lucid (and its derivatives) because
dh-autoreconf is a non-main package on those systems.  Keeping
compatibility with all officially supported Ubuntu variants is
worthwhile and something that I want to do.


> Update debian/watch to track upstream official release tarballs

Is the Github redirector fully obsolete?  (nb:
http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch/)

The pkg-spl and pkg-zfs watch files were added after an earlier
private ITP review.


> Strip from zfs-dkms all files not related to kernel modules.
> Clean debian directory for unneeded *.docs
> (copyright notices should be added to debian/copyright properly)

The OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE file should be unmodified and bundled in every
ZFS package, even if the CDDL is duplicated in the debian/copyright
file.

Modifying or omitting Oracle legal notices will attract Oracle
lawyers.  Saving less than 64 kilobytes of boilerplate per
installation is just not worth the risk.


> Add zfs-linux metapackage for convenience to install all ZFS

Consider naming this debian-zfs to fit the naming convention of other
meta packages already in distribution, and to better accommodate the
kFreeBSD platform in case the meta package can be shared.

Big or important source packages do not typically provide their own
meta.  Doing this makes it more difficult for large sites to do local
overrides and customization.  (And it follows that I should rename the
ubuntu-zfs source package to something like meta-ubuntu-zfs for better
conformance.)


> ensure dependencies are also always updated to the right version.

This reintroduces a dkms ordering bug where the zfs build races the
spl build.  Notice how the BUILD_DEPENDS directive is handled by dkms.


> General cleaning of files not needed (dracut/sudoers.d/...)

These things were submitted by new ZoL contributors.  Stripping them
discourages further contribution from these people.


> Add a debconf helper that checks if the running kernel is a 64-bit one.
> If it detects that the kernel is 32-bit or it couldn't detect the kind of kernel
> shows a warning to the user asking for confirmation before continuing.

I added this kind of nagging to some private builds and got negative
feedback. YMMV. Consider disabling second-class architectures entirely
because Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases.

Double-check that the debconf can handle a non-default
/etc/dkms/framework.conf file.  The "/boot/config-$(uname -r)" test
could be problematic.


> Add /etc/init.d/zfs and remove /etc/init.d/{zfs-mount,zfs-share}.
> There is not need at all for two different initscripts.

This races on systems that have event driven init stacks like upstart
or systemd, and it can break in a regular sysv init stack because
networking can come online a long time after local storage is ready.

What happens if /etc/fstab has a legacy line that causes an automatic
import before /etc/init.d/zfs is called?

What happens if zfs invokes /usr/bin/net or /usr/sbin/exportfs before
the network comes up?

What happens if /tmp, /usr, or /var is on a zfs mount point?


> Integrate all lib* packages into libzfs1. This keep the package cleaner.
> To me seems overkill have one package for each .so file

The libnvpair and libzfs packages are separate in all other ZFS
implementations, and I don't see the benefit in doing something
unusual for Debian.  Note that the current library breakout was
approved by upstream.


> when there is no real benefit (I don't expect any other package other than
> zfsutils to link against this libraries)

Why do you expect that ZFS libraries will not be linked by other
packages?  At least one person has mentioned on the discussion list
that they are working on a web interface, somebody else is working on
gparted and nagios integration, and there are several commercial
efforts doing things on top of ZoL.


> Many other minor cleans/fixes

The total diff is 6,515 lines.  Splitting functional changes into
separate commits would be easier to review.  Right now:

* General compatibility with Ubuntu and Linux Mint is broken.
* Upgrades to existing systems are broken.
* Third party consumers are broken.

-- 
Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:57:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:57:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #52 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
Cc: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:53:19 +0800
Hi,

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
<clopez@igalia.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Finally found some time to work on the spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages.
>
> I started with debian helpers from Darik Horn and I ended rewriting many
> things. Hope all looks ok O:-) You have a summary of the most relevant
> changes on the commit message [1]
>
> Keep in mind that the packages are still in beta status. There are things
> to fix like all the pending lintian warnings, perhaps rewriting
> debian/copyright (copyright notices can be added together when they share
> one or more authors, there is not need for an entry for each one)
>
> Also I will wait until upstream releases 0.6.0. I don't want to release
> a -rc version. Also 0.6.0 would be the version where the ZPL layer will
> be considered stabilized.
>

Darik said zfsonlinux upstream won't release 0.6.0 but go with 0.6.1
directly, because 0.6.0-rcX is actually numbers larger than 0.6.0.
Releasing to experimental is okay for wider testing, and only upload
to unstable when the versions/patches are acknowledged by upstream is
reasonable.

> I founded that there is not possible to add two people as maintainers.
> debuild will complain about malformed maintainer address.
>
> So I guess we need to set-up a project on Alioth to handle the team
> maintenance. I'm not a DD, so I would be very grateful if some of you
> that are DDs (Aron?) could set-up the Alioth project to collaborative
> maintain this package and add us to it (my login-name on Alioth is
> clopez-guest).
>

I've set up a pkg-zfsonlinux team on alioth, and you've been added to
the project already. Git hosting is okay now, but please don't create
repository before we've decided how to maintain it. I recommend to use
git-buildpackage, but you may like other ways.

> I removed from the control files lot of replaces/conflicts that didn't
> make sense to me. Perhaps for Ubuntu make sense (don't know). I guess
> Darik can review it and fix when needed so Ubuntu users can have a painless
> upgrade from the Darik's PPA packages to this ones. As you probably know
> Ubuntu "steals" the packages from Debian/sid for normal versions and from
> Debian/testing for LTS versions. So I guess this packages would end on
> Ubuntu's official repositories in a year or so.
>

Those information is better to be preserved for compatibility, it
makes no sense to deliberately make other people's life harder. In the
future we can use experimental to provide upstream snapshots
periodically and Darik's stable PPA can just replicate it for Ubuntu
releases he would like to support.

>
> One question that floats over my mind is related to the name of the packages
> libzfs-dev libzfs1 and zfsutils. On Debian/kFreeBSD there are packages with
> the same name. Is allowed to have different source packages building binary
> packages with the same name when they are different architectures? If is not
> allowed then I guess we will have to rename the packages.
>

It is possible when there isn't architecture collision, but we need to
come into an agreement with kBSD people (and maybe ftp-masters) before
actually doing so.

>
> The repositories with the packages are here:
>
> https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux
> https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms
>
>

I'll have a look on them later, and I think it's better to host such
repositories on Debian's infrastructure after we've decided how to use
it.

> Just in case someone want to test it, I have uploaded all packages built
> for AMD64 as also the source packages to here:
>
>
> http://ftp.neutrino.es/zfs-linux/
>
>
> To test it, at least the packages zfs-dkms and zfsutils should be
> installed (with all the required dependencies).
>
> I will be on holidays next week. So looking forward to see your replies
> when I come back.
>
>
> Keep in mind that the packages are still a work-in-progress.
>
> Patches/pull-requests/suggestions are welcome :)
>
>
>
> Best regards!
> -------------
>
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms/commit/a88b5bf72fe8f11f7dbd0ebe17ba7b46e00a4e6f
> https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux/commit/8f3e1ef9a2dfbff9594e5d823e0d18121efba688
>



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:03:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:03:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #57 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:00:25 +0800
The alioth project page is: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-zfsonlinux/

Please anyone interested in helping on the actual packaging apply and
join the team. Currently I'll give admin privilege to anyone who is
DD, and later to other people who need it when the project is on its
right track.


--
Regards,
Aron Xu



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #62 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>
To: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
Cc: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: zfsonlinux packaging
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:35:51 +0000
Are there plans in modifying partman-zfs [1] to build on architectures
supported by zfsonlinux / spl & corresponding udebs?

If you do this, you can get debian-installer support in Debian & Ubuntu.

[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/partman-zfs.html

Regards,

Dmitrijs.



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:54:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:54:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #67 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>
Cc: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: zfsonlinux packaging
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:51:32 -0600
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
> Are there plans in modifying partman-zfs [1] to build on architectures
> supported by zfsonlinux / spl & corresponding udebs?

Yes, the installer for kFreeBSD can be enhanced for ZoL, but I want
these bugs fixed before publishing it:

  * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/12
  * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/16
  * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/23
  * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/27

Complete integration also requires /usr/sbin/dkms (and maybe
/bin/mount) patches that are in public testing now but not yet
submitted upstream.

-- 
Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:57:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:57:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #72 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org
Subject: native ZoL debs are available at archive.zfsonlinux.org
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:53:36 -0600
ITP feedback is merged into the upstream repositories and, because we
missed the release deadline, native ZoL packages for Debian 7 will be
published at:

* deb http://archive.zfsonlinux.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib

The core ZoL packages are already posted for limited testing, and the
necessary helpers will appear sometime this week.  Afterwards, we
should discuss what should go into the Alioth repository.



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:21:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:21:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #77 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
To: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#686447: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:18:04 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi!

An update here.

I was a bit busy later. Today I was talking with Aron on IRC and we
agreed that we will push your repository on Alioth in order to keep the
full history.

In fact is already there:

http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-zfsonlinux/zfs.git
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-zfsonlinux/spl.git

And we will start from this codebase.

I will be rebasing some of the changes I did on a separate branch (and
splitting them in small commits) so we could discuss later each one of
this changes.

See below for the inline replies to your last mail:


On 16/12/12 09:19, Darik Horn wrote:
>> Strip from spl-dkms all files not related to kernel modules.
> 
> Why are you removing copyright attributions like the AUTHORS file?
> This could upset ZoL contributors and cause legal exposure.
> 
> 

I thought that debian/copyright file would be enough to give credit to
the authors of the software.

However you are right. A simple "apt-file search AUTHORS" give me more
than enough reasons to keep this file.

>> Rewrite postinst helper that ensures that /etc/hostid is valid and will remain constant across reboots.
> 
> The __BYTE_ORDER__ test is interesting.  I will likely add it to pkg-spl.
> 
> However, randomizing the hostid violates the principle of least
> astonishment because it causes a zpool.cache mismatch that breaks
> subsequent imports, and it can break license management for non-Debian
> software.
> 
> Stabilizing the hostid is safe, but changing the hostid is unsafe for
> the same reason that randomizing a missing hostname is wrong.
> 
> 

I'm only randomizing it when the current host's hostid is "0xffffffff",
which I understand is an invalid hostid for ZFS and would case it to
stop working properly. Isn't this the case?


> The pristine-tar branch already exists in pkg-spl and pkg-zfs.  Using
> the pristine-tar facility is certainly correct, but not currently
> practical for doing the frequent releases that ZoL users expect.

We should agree on a common way of working.

Either we use pristine-tar or not.

I'm relative new to use git for Debian packages. So I'm open to follow
yours and Aron advice.


> 
> 
>> Fix clean target and use dh_autoreconf
> 
> This breaks backports for Lucid (and its derivatives) because
> dh-autoreconf is a non-main package on those systems.  Keeping
> compatibility with all officially supported Ubuntu variants is
> worthwhile and something that I want to do.
> 
> 

Well. I love to have things as clean and small as possible.
dh_autoreconf helps with that. But I understand your point. Not big deal.

>> Update debian/watch to track upstream official release tarballs
> 
> Is the Github redirector fully obsolete?  (nb:
> http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch/)
> 
> The pkg-spl and pkg-zfs watch files were added after an earlier
> private ITP review.
> 
> 

github redirector is not longer needed, so why use it?

http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9

Also the url on the debian/watch on your packages is not working.

This is what the current master on Alioth (your package) reports:

$ uscan --report-status
Processing watchfile line for package zfs-linux...
Newest version on remote site is 0~master, local version is 0.6.0.97
zfs-linux: remote site does not even have current version


This is what the package that I did previously reports:

$ uscan --report-status
Processing watchfile line for package zfs-linux...
Newest version on remote site is 0.5.2, local version is 0.6.0~rc12
zfs-linux: remote site does not even have current version




>> Strip from zfs-dkms all files not related to kernel modules.
>> Clean debian directory for unneeded *.docs
>> (copyright notices should be added to debian/copyright properly)
> 
> The OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE file should be unmodified and bundled in every
> ZFS package, even if the CDDL is duplicated in the debian/copyright
> file.
> 
> Modifying or omitting Oracle legal notices will attract Oracle
> lawyers.  Saving less than 64 kilobytes of boilerplate per
> installation is just not worth the risk.
> 
> 
Ok.

>> Add zfs-linux metapackage for convenience to install all ZFS
> 
> Consider naming this debian-zfs to fit the naming convention of other
> meta packages already in distribution, and to better accommodate the
> kFreeBSD platform in case the meta package can be shared.
> 
> Big or important source packages do not typically provide their own
> meta.  Doing this makes it more difficult for large sites to do local
> overrides and customization.  (And it follows that I should rename the
> ubuntu-zfs source package to something like meta-ubuntu-zfs for better
> conformance.)
> 
> 

I don't see the point of sharing such metapackage with kFreeBSD. The
whole point of the metapackage is to pull the right versions of the spl
and zfs dkms modules (which are linux specific) plus the right versions
of the user space tools that are also linux specific.


>> ensure dependencies are also always updated to the right version.
> 
> This reintroduces a dkms ordering bug where the zfs build races the
> spl build.  Notice how the BUILD_DEPENDS directive is handled by dkms.
> 
> 

Is that a bug on dkms? was reported?

>> General cleaning of files not needed (dracut/sudoers.d/...)
> 
> These things were submitted by new ZoL contributors.  Stripping them
> discourages further contribution from these people.
> 

I don't agree in this.

Shipping a commented file in /etc/sudoers.d will only cause trouble when
the package is upgraded and tries to overwrite your local changes.

The right place for such file would be  /usr/share/doc/$package/examples/


About dracut helpers, that should be moved to another package
(zfs-dracut) as there is already one zfs-initramfs.

But, honestly, given the popularity of dracut inside Debian/Ubuntu, I
won't spend time on this. However I don't have problems if you want to
work on it.

http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=dracut

>> Add a debconf helper that checks if the running kernel is a 64-bit one.
>> If it detects that the kernel is 32-bit or it couldn't detect the kind of kernel
>> shows a warning to the user asking for confirmation before continuing.
> 
> I added this kind of nagging to some private builds and got negative
> feedback. YMMV. Consider disabling second-class architectures entirely
> because Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases.
> 

IMHO enabling second-class architectures (non-x86) is a goal to achieve.
It would help to find bugs on the codebase.

Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases? I don't
understand what you mean with this.


> Double-check that the debconf can handle a non-default
> /etc/dkms/framework.conf file.  The "/boot/config-$(uname -r)" test
> could be problematic.
> 

That check don't requires dkms for nothing. It basically checks in your
kernel config if you are running a 32 bit kernel.

If it detects your kernel is a 32 bit one, it requires you to explicit
accept the warning message.

If it is unable to find your kernel config then it prints another
warning saying that it couldn't detect if your kernel is 32 or 64 bit,
and that you should only install this on a 64-bit kernel.

The warning is only show once. Once you have accepted it, it won't show
anymore whenever you upgrade or reinstall.


I understand that this could be annoying, but this is exactly for what's
intended. Better annoy people when they install the package for the firs
time, that let them run this without knowing that it could cause data
corruption or instability on their systems on the long term.


> 
>> Add /etc/init.d/zfs and remove /etc/init.d/{zfs-mount,zfs-share}.
>> There is not need at all for two different initscripts.
> 
> This races on systems that have event driven init stacks like upstart
> or systemd, and it can break in a regular sysv init stack because
> networking can come online a long time after local storage is ready.
> 
> What happens if /etc/fstab has a legacy line that causes an automatic
> import before /etc/init.d/zfs is called?
> 
> What happens if zfs invokes /usr/bin/net or /usr/sbin/exportfs before
> the network comes up?
> 
> What happens if /tmp, /usr, or /var is on a zfs mount point?
> 
> 

Ok. Makes sense.

>> Integrate all lib* packages into libzfs1. This keep the package cleaner.
>> To me seems overkill have one package for each .so file
> 
> The libnvpair and libzfs packages are separate in all other ZFS
> implementations, and I don't see the benefit in doing something
> unusual for Debian.  Note that the current library breakout was
> approved by upstream.
> 
> 
>> when there is no real benefit (I don't expect any other package other than
>> zfsutils to link against this libraries)
> 
> Why do you expect that ZFS libraries will not be linked by other
> packages?  At least one person has mentioned on the discussion list
> that they are working on a web interface, somebody else is working on
> gparted and nagios integration, and there are several commercial
> efforts doing things on top of ZoL.
> 
> 

Ok. Makes sense.

>> Many other minor cleans/fixes
> 
> The total diff is 6,515 lines.  Splitting functional changes into
> separate commits would be easier to review.  Right now:
> 
> * General compatibility with Ubuntu and Linux Mint is broken.
> * Upgrades to existing systems are broken.
> * Third party consumers are broken.
> 


Yes.

I will be rebasing some of this work on top of the current master that
is on Alioth on a new branch.

And will be posting a mail with a summary of the changes on the mailing
list pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org to discuss them prior
merging it.

I will do it on small iterations to avoid this kind of big mails that
are hard to follow.

PS: Darik, subscribe yourself to
pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org if you are not already.


Regards!
--------

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 05:03:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 05:03:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #82 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>
Cc: 686447@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#686447: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:58:10 -0600
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
<clopez@igalia.com> wrote:
> I'm only randomizing it when the current host's hostid is "0xffffffff",
> which I understand is an invalid hostid for ZFS and would case it to
> stop working properly. Isn't this the case?

Where I used 0xFFFFFFFF earlier, it was used as a canary value so that
an interrupted installation would fail gracefully.

Given that hostid() deterministically generates a value when the
/etc/hostid file is missing, this line 60 in the spl-dkms.postinst is
still suspect:

  dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=3 seek=1 of=/etc/hostid 2>/dev/null

My concern here is that changing the return of hostid() can break
third-party software.  (eg: FLEXlm.)


>> The pristine-tar branch already exists in pkg-spl and pkg-zfs.  Using
>> the pristine-tar facility is certainly correct, but not currently
>> practical for doing the frequent releases that ZoL users expect.
>
> We should agree on a common way of working.
>
> Either we use pristine-tar or not.

Lets use pristine-tar then.


>> This breaks backports for Lucid (and its derivatives) because
>> dh-autoreconf is a non-main package on those systems.  Keeping
>> compatibility with all officially supported Ubuntu variants is
>> worthwhile and something that I want to do.
>>
>>
>
> Well. I love to have things as clean and small as possible.
> dh_autoreconf helps with that. But I understand your point. Not big deal.

I intend to cease Lucid builds when it goes out of extended desktop
support this April, so this issue will soon be mooted.


> github redirector is not longer needed, so why use it?
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9
>
> Also the url on the debian/watch on your packages is not working.

Okay, it is obsolete.


>> Modifying or omitting Oracle legal notices will attract Oracle
>> lawyers.  Saving less than 64 kilobytes of boilerplate per
>> installation is just not worth the risk.
>>
>>
> Ok.

Thanks. This is a relief.


>> This reintroduces a dkms ordering bug where the zfs build races the
>> spl build.  Notice how the BUILD_DEPENDS directive is handled by dkms.
>>
>>
>
> Is that a bug on dkms?

This is more of an enhancement than a bug.

Lustre, ZFS, and SPL are all separate projects upstream.  No other
Linux modules have such build dependencies outside of the packaging
subsystem.


> was reported?

Yes.

Note that zfsonlinux/dkms has a recent bug fix that has not yet been
submitted upstream.


> I don't agree in this.
>
> Shipping a commented file in /etc/sudoers.d will only cause trouble when
> the package is upgraded and tries to overwrite your local changes.
>
> The right place for such file would be  /usr/share/doc/$package/examples/

Okay, that is a fair substitute.


>> I added this kind of nagging to some private builds and got negative
>> feedback. YMMV. Consider disabling second-class architectures entirely
>> because Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases.
>>
>
> IMHO enabling second-class architectures (non-x86) is a goal to achieve.
> It would help to find bugs on the codebase.

ZFS depends on assumptions about the Linux vmalloc that are false for
32-bit kernels.  It is worth noting that ARM support in ZoL is
arguably better than 32-bit x86 support.


> Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases? I don't
> understand what you mean with this.

It sounded like there was an effort to get ZoL into Wheezy.  Any
version of ZoL that gets into a stable Debian release will have a very
long lifetime, and it is likely that upstream will improve 32-bit
support in the meantime.


> The warning is only show once. Once you have accepted it, it won't show
> anymore whenever you upgrade or reinstall.
>
>
> I understand that this could be annoying, but this is exactly for what's
> intended. Better annoy people when they install the package for the firs
> time, that let them run this without knowing that it could cause data
> corruption or instability on their systems on the long term.

Okay, this is ultimately an issue of aesthetics, so I will defer.


> PS: Darik, subscribe yourself to
> pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org if you are not already.

I am subscribed.

TTYS.

-- 
Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug#686453; Package wnpp. (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:24:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>. (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:24:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #87 received at 686453@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
To: "Debian GNU/kBSD" <debian-bsd@lists.debian.org>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
Subject: ZFS on Linux and native ZFS on BSD
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:20:53 +0800
Dear fellow developers,

It has been quite some time since native ZFS on Linux (zfsonlinux, or
ZoL) enters release candidate testing phrase, and a team has been
founded recently for the work in Debian (pkg-zfsonlinux). Here we have
several issues to be confirmed and coordinated between kBSD and ZoL,
so that we can work for the desirable direction.

1. Naming of the packages
In kFreeBSD, src:zfsutils produces libnvpair1{,-udeb},
libumem1{,-udeb}, libuutil1{,-udeb}, libzfs1{,-udeb},
libzpool1{,-udeb}, and zfsutils{,-udeb}. I'm curious if we can reuse
the names of these binary packages on linux-any architectures, and
choose a different source package name (zfs-linux, currently)?

2. Partman support
As far as I know, partman-zfs is GPL licensed, and does not need to
link against any CDDL stuff, so I think it would be OK to integrate
ZoL support if there are people do the work?

3. Compatibility (zpool, etc)
In ZoL RC14, zpool version has been bumped to 5000, following the step
of OpenIndiana. I'm curious what's the current zpool version in
kFreeBSD, and what's your plan? It would be great if people can import
existing ZoL partition to a kFreeBSD installation, or reversely.

There is also a question about /etc/hostid handling, do you know how
is it handled in kBSD? Existing packaging work of Fedora ZoL makes
hostid static, but I doubt it's desired.

4. About zfs-fuse on Linux
Debian package maintainer of zfs-fuse has joined the team of ZoL, and
he said we may remove zfs-fuse from the archive when ZoL is available
in unstable, so zfs-fuse won't get in the way of naming and
compatibility then.

5. Licensing
ZoL is an independent Linux kernel module developed by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) under a contract between U.S.
Department of Energy and LLNL, and is separated into two parts to
avoid violating CDDL. A Solaris Porting Layer (SPL) kernel module is
developed to provide many of the Solaris kernel APIs, and is licensed
under GPL-2+, while the zfs modules are CDDL, reusing existing
OpenSolaris code and cooperate with BSDs and OpenIndiana.


--
Regards,
Aron Xu



Added tag(s) pending. Request was from Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Thu, 04 Jul 2013 20:06:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Reply sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:03:17 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:03:17 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #94 received at 686453-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
To: 686453-close@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#686453: fixed in spl-linux 0.6.1-1
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:00:06 +0000
Source: spl-linux
Source-Version: 0.6.1-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
spl-linux, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 686453@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> (supplier of updated spl-linux package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:03:05 +0200
Source: spl-linux
Binary: spl-dkms spl
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 0.6.1-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian ZFS on Linux maintainers <pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
Description: 
 spl        - Solaris Porting Layer user-space utilities for Linux
 spl-dkms   - Solaris Porting Layer kernel modules for Linux
Closes: 686453
Changes: 
 spl-linux (0.6.1-1) experimental; urgency=low
 .
   * Initial Release (Closes: #686453)
Checksums-Sha1: 
 74b66360b6b627793bda89be35e94058d41efa60 1730 spl-linux_0.6.1-1.dsc
 919fc67bf01f1d7f32057a9dfdf6508b5a0ed515 549127 spl-linux_0.6.1.orig.tar.gz
 d7cc7150a7b847ad4096874f1d1b075a84595380 6309 spl-linux_0.6.1-1.debian.tar.gz
 070e41bac937cee84fab3d53c1bd98890f95cd75 526312 spl-dkms_0.6.1-1_all.deb
 5f3cb4aec509721cf4bb3ae80d069cbc005ebcdd 13682 spl_0.6.1-1_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 0b26237784d9bb0ba28cddaae7fc0eff9ccb248bb206ad871ceefa69290e455b 1730 spl-linux_0.6.1-1.dsc
 5dc947c321cdafff7f8b4d533097f1130e9a1d8785338fd70b3f03b8dd28418e 549127 spl-linux_0.6.1.orig.tar.gz
 ab0ba91eafe158ef021329a8e3bea7c0f7061e0e8601c64a085b2ff1991c7d84 6309 spl-linux_0.6.1-1.debian.tar.gz
 ce4bcf84fdb3fc48396d8cabc18d330b0d5096a8fff7e23311cc29b85bb0d666 526312 spl-dkms_0.6.1-1_all.deb
 d2bee347f4cea79bb2bfb18d9e667848f723906d58dd102d74468579db00ae1d 13682 spl_0.6.1-1_amd64.deb
Files: 
 2e08912558e4c5f17989f902e6e33d55 1730 kernel optional spl-linux_0.6.1-1.dsc
 d41f5d259b0bebe749c0ce20627e8467 549127 kernel optional spl-linux_0.6.1.orig.tar.gz
 991399f4877019b83979a328a05e1c65 6309 kernel optional spl-linux_0.6.1-1.debian.tar.gz
 b0819540503e72bcdc50a077e9c94904 526312 kernel optional spl-dkms_0.6.1-1_all.deb
 a7c938969d23924c8e08e56c2a005ad1 13682 kernel optional spl_0.6.1-1_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR1SsjAAoJEGa1A/2e4BN5FXMH/2Qurpt28DK5sS1fmW23Djbl
7oOjSLSr+21fRwAyO9N/tg5HeNL18VL/umxG3yGQsY4HQX6VqCYggx8nn6Jb/ruf
tp/fn7qEYaPhsCL0S6BFKVtq2btU8VZsZEPi/CTKQnJ1+mxDIlHFRmZbTXeOY+Zg
QlwtxBdsqjldj0kd8zVeqechn0cZvJ5luir+518mvckEsU/KkU4jiws0DQ+nLaw3
xcsnvMUA93HQ2fRHPCytrRqha+574uD570/B7/u2eeMnud+Njuocgg808MWjAXR3
bYpAmIbQ/pIa61sgJzFrlX4gu2k1bPQYPFdfV94Bz58D2ij4gaRWhmjDP7Uzr7Q=
=GSOs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 05 Aug 2013 07:30:53 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 17 07:23:50 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.